The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded all courts in the country to take judicial notice of the official acts of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government in the resolution of cases that would affect the liberty of an accused.

Under the Rules of Court, a judicial notice is a fact which does not require proof in a judicial proceeding because it is of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

In a decision made public last April 24 in GR No. 256591 and written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the SC granted the petition of Ponce L. de Leon, former chairman of Barangay Sta. Rosa in Umingan, Pangasinan, and acquitted him of illegal possession of firearms.

The SC reversed the June 17, 2020 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the June 18, 2018 ruling of the regional trial court (RTC) that convicted De Leon and sentenced him to a prison term ranging from six to eight years for illegal possession of firearms.

Case records showed that on Oct. 8, 2015, the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) in Urdaneta City applied for a search warrant against De Leon.

On Oct. 11, 2015, the police implemented the search warrant and seized from De Leon a firearm loaded with six rounds of ammunition. It was found that the license of the firearm expired on July 18, 2014.

De Leon was charged before the RTC with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and as further amended by RA 10591, the Comprehensive Firearm and Ammunition Act of 2013.

When arraigned, De Leon pleaded not guilty.

In his testimony, De Leon admitted ownership of the seized firearm which had an expired license.

He said that he attempted to apply for the renewal of his license but that process was complicated. He added that he again applied for the renewal in January 2016 and his application was granted on March 2, 2016.

The RTC convicted him and his conviction was upheld by the CA.

In his motion for reconsideration before the CA, De Leon invoked his innocence as he cited that on Aug. 20, 2014 then PNP Director General Alan L. Purisima approved the extension until Dec. 31, 2025 of the validity of firearms licenses due for expiration in 2014.

Thus, he told the CA that his firearm license was still valid at the time a search warrant was issued and implemented that led to its seizure and the filing of a criminal case against him.

He submitted in his motion the screenshots of posts and articles from news outlets on the extension of firearms licenses.

The CA was not persuaded and denied De Leon’s motion on May 25, 2021. The CA ruled that issues raised for the first time on appeal on a motion for reconsideration are not allowed.

Also, the CA ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of the alleged directive of the PNP taken from the internet as it pointed out that the screenshots are deemed as hearsay evidence unless authenticated under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

De Leon elevated his case before the SC.

He told the SC that the CA erred in its ruling that the appellate court cannot take judicial notice of the PNP’s notice of extension of the validity of firearms license to Dec. 31, 2015.

He also said that the prosecution failed to prove that he had intent to possess the firearm with expired license as he exerted all efforts to renew its license until it was finally renewed.

The SC said that while issues raised for the first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration will not be entertained, it is settled that an appeal throws the whole case open for review.

It pointed out that “courts are bound to rule in favor of the accused if it gives rise to doubt as to their guilt.”

The SC said the issues raised by De Leon ultimately affected the determination of his innocence.

It also said that there is merit on De Leon’s contention that the court can take judicial notice of his attaching only copies of news articles and posts on the extension of the firearms licenses expiring in 2014.

It added: “Judicial notice is defined as the cognizance of certain facts which courts may take and act on without proof, because they already know them. Otherwise stated, by taking judicial notice, the court dispenses with the need for the traditional form of presentation of evidence.”

At the same time, the SC said: “Again, the firearms license of petitioner (De Leon) relevant in this case expired on July 18, 2014, and his house was searched on Oct. 11, 2015. Both of these dates fall under the extension announced by the PNP, which again, extended the validity of firearms licenses due for expiration in 2014, to Dec. 31, 2015. Therefore, it is evident that the second element of illegal possession of firearms is absent. Petitioner benefited from the extension and his firearms license was still valid at the time his house was searched.”

“Hence, due to the prosecution's failure to establish all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, petitioner must perforce be acquitted,” the SC ruled.

It declared its decision immediately executory.